A Traveling Exhibition of Oversized Drawings

From May 1987 until April 1988 the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
circulated a large exhibition of drawings by Montreal contemporary
artist Betty Goodwin. Over 100 hundred works traveled to museums in
Toronto and Vancouver before returning for their final showing in
Montreal. In addition, smaller exhibitions of selected drawings were
sent to two galleries in New York. Although many of the traveled
works were framed drawings of standard size, the focal point of the
main exhibition consisted of several drawings of enormous scale. The
largest, Untitled No. 11 (fig. 1) from the
Swimmer series, measures 121½ by 169½ inches.
It is made up of seven sheets of lightweight white paper, each about
42 inches wide. They are arranged in two layers: The small green
rectangle (which appears dark grey in the photograph) and the figure
visible in the top left corner of the work are painted on the bottom
layer of three adjacent sheets of paper. Overlapping these and
extending beyond them by one paper panel is the series of four
sheets bearing the wide gold rectangle (light grey in the
photograph) and the central figure. The thin paper is naturally
translucent, and is made even more so in the image area where it has
been saturated with oily media. Except for the single layer on the
far right, then, two superimposed sets of drawings work together to
make up the whole drawing.

Fig. 1 Untitled No. l from the
Swimmer series

Untitled No. 1 was one of several drawings which had
formed part of a 1983 installation called In Berlin. A
Triptych: The Beginning of the Fourth Part2 Another element of the installation is
the Passage. Although it is essentially a sculpture
because of its metal framework, it still falls into the domain of
the Paper Conservator because it is draped with eight 200 inch long
paper panels. The exhibition also included eight other large
unframed drawings, similar to Untitled No. 1. As a
result, arriving at methods of safely traveling and presenting this
show was an enormous undertaking.

There were two main problems: the packaging and the hanging of
the unframed drawings without subjecting them to undue risk.
Traditional framing was not practical due to the size of the works
and their unique configuration. Furthermore, the artist's original
intent—to hang them directly on the wall with no barrier
between them and the viewer—was to be respected if at all
possible. Our curator was adamant that the fluid atmosphere of the
drawings, which she describes in her catalogue essay as suggesting
"the depth of the sea and the menacing quality of its
immensity"3, must not be given
the effect of an aquarium by a protective sheet of plexiglas.

When Betty Goodwin first created and exhibited these drawings she
simply pinned them to the wall. Repeated hangings had already
resulted in many tears and losses along the top and bottom edges.
For our traveling exhibition, I looked for a new hanging method
which would prevent further damage to the thin paper. I considered
clamps, hinges or long tabs to extend the top edges of the drawings;
however, given that there was a time constraint and that several of
the drawings did not belong to the Museum and would arrive at the
last minute, I felt a quicker and easier solution was needed. The
answer was magnets.

I scaled down my initial idea—that of hanging the drawings
with magnets on giant refrigerator doors—to the use of narrow
metal bars fixed to the wall where magnets would support the top
edges of the drawings. The small round magnets to be used would be
no more apparent than thumb tacks along the top edge. I soon found
that the three-eighth inch diameter magnets I first ordered would
have been sufficient for the single-layer drawings, but that the
double-layer drawings needed stronger support. Many of these had
been reinforced with one or two layers of cloth tape along the
weakened top edges, so the magnets had two be effective through four
to six layers of material. In the end I opted for larger magnets
with a diameter of five-eighth of an inch. Though visible, they were
positioned so far above eye level that they did not interfere with
the appreciation of the drawings.

Had I been able to weigh the drawings I could have used a
mathematical formula to determine the size and number of magnets
required. Instead, I used mock-ups. Surprisingly, experience showed
me that a heavyweight support could be easier to hang than a
lightweight paper. Several new works created specifically for a New
York venue were executed on a heavy draughting support called
Geofilm, which is made of mylar covered with a translucent coating.
I had not expected to be able to hang these drawings with magnets;
however, they proved just heavy and rigid enough to hang flat and
almost immobile on the wall, and were only minimally moved by air
currents, which proved to be the biggest danger to the lightweight
drawings. Furthermore, the use of pins was particularly damaging to
this type of support. Although it is hard to start a tear in
Geofilm, once started, the tear will "run." The use of magnets
prevented this kind of damage.

In order to use the magnet system the following materials are
required: The steel bars to be fixed to the wall must be just
shorter than the widths of the drawings and should measure about
1¼ inches wide and 1/8 inch thick to allow for the countersunk
screws. These screws should be stainless steel or plastic-coated to
eliminate rust, oil or grime which will stain the paper. The edges
of the metal bars are beveled and sanded smooth. The faces are
sanded so they will take a coat of white paint and blend in with the
white walls despite the translucency of the paper. The drawings are
held against the metal bars with ceramic magnets.4 These are grey and must be painted to
avoid marking the drawings and to be made inconspicuous. Ceramic
magnets come in eight grades, based on their energy product rating.
I used grade 5 , which is the strongest in the series of
standard-type magnets. The higher grades are specialty magnets which
involve a huge leap in power and cost as well as some undesirable
characteristics such as specific shape requirements and
demagnetization with handling. Grade 5 magnets will maintain their
original strength for at least 100,000 hours (eleven and one half
years) unless they are chipped or scratched. Strip magnets were also
considered for the aesthetic advantage that they would appear as a
single continuous line; however, they are weaker than ceramic
magnets unless incorporated into a steel circuit: Thin steel must be
laminated to one side so that a steel-magnet-steel sandwich (and
with it, increased bulk) is created. Moreover, for my purposes rows
of individual magnets were more convenient and adaptable. A few
magnets could be removed so a drawing could be shifted to align with
its partner, or a row could be lifted off a sheet one by one and
gradually replaced on a subsequent sheet as additional layers were
superimposed. Because the top edges of the drawings were quite
irregular, the various components of the image would not meet if
they were lined up exactly . Furthermore, some of the sheets had to
overlap each other as much as half an inch and others had to abut
precisely for the image to be coherent. The magnet system was
flexible. The drawings could easily be shifted vertically or
horizontally to accommodate these irregularities.

Over time we simplified the procedure for hanging the drawings.
The metal bars were screwed to the walls at a position designed to
correspond with the top edge of the paper sheets. Each single sheet
was unrolled from its specially prepared tube onto a protective
paper on the floor. Once it had been positioned correctly on the
floor in line with the metal bar, that sheet was gently pulled up
the wall where it was anchored to the bar with a row of magnets. (fig. 2) Subsequent sheets were added in like manner
and subtle adjustments in positioning were made as needed. Though
more complicated in the case of the layered drawings, the hanging
was surprisingly simple and quick. In fact, in Vancouver and
Montreal when our curator decided to rearrange the drawings after
all had been hung the crews of preparators protested only mildly.

Having anticipated light fluttering of the drawings in air
currents caused by crowd movement and air conditioning, I had
prepared small, round metal plates which could be screwed to the
wall at the bottom of the drawings to accommodate magnets there;
however, at the first showing in Toronto I found that the drawings
did not hang naturally when fixed at the bottom corners. On the next
leg of the exhibition, a brain-storming session with the preparators
at the Vancouver Art Gallery led to the use of fine transparent
nylon thread that was stretched across the bottom of each drawing
and pinned to the wall on either side of it. When the thread lay
flat against the drawing it created only a faint shadow and was
almost invisible.

Fig. 2. Each sheet is anchored to the metal bar
with a row of magnets.

In Vancouver and in Toronto the exhibition went off without a
hitch: The drawings hung securely on the walls, their bottom edges
moving only minimally. It was at home in Montreal, when we were
confident that we had already resolved all potential problems, that
the unforeseen occurred. One drawing had been hanging undisturbed
for over a week when it was suddenly lifted by strong draughts that
filled it like a sail. The immediate solution was to hold the
drawing against the wall with a "bandage" of wide paper extending
across it. This horizontal band was taped to the wall on either side
of the drawing to keep the air from getting behind it. Adjustments
were made to the ventilation system to eliminate air movement and to
ensure that the problem would not recur. And instead of relying on
only one nylon thread across the bottom of the works, three or four
threads were extended across them so there would be less opportunity
for air to enter from behind should any more strange weather systems
arise. The guards also began to take a more active interest in
observing the drawings and reporting on any peculiarities. Much to
my relief we never experienced that problem again. To avoid such a
situation, anyone planning to hang unframed drawings would be wise
to conduct thorough long term tests of patterns of air movement in
the gallery.

I began this project thinking of the use of magnets as an unusual
technique designed for unusual drawings. I did not expect it to be
effective for the hanging of two quite different drawing supports
— the very thin, light paper and the heavy Geofilm. I was also
surprised to find that throughout the exhibition the magnets sparked
considerable interest, especially on the part of artists looking for
new ways to display their own large drawings. Magnets would be
convenient, for example, for short term hangings, such as the
presentation of large drawings to acquisition committees. Although
the magnet system is unlikely to become a common museum mounting
technique it could have many useful applications.

The second problem faced in preparing this exhibit was the design
of a system to package the large format drawings. Flat storage was
rejected for the works we packed. For the eight sheets of paper,
each about sixteen feet long, which drape over the metal
Passage of In Berlin, horizontal storage
on tubes was the only practical and safe solution. Even for the
shorter drawings, (those measuring only eleven feet), flat storage
was theoretically possible but would have been problematic. Air
transport of such exceptionally long crates would have been out of
the question. In fact, an exception was made when the drawings on
Geofilm were transported to their first destination because the
media was still too fresh to permit rolling. The crate constructed
for them was not really adequate, however, because a satisfactory
method of securing them had not been developed. They tended to slide
with handling, whereas the rolled works remained fixed securely.
After our exhibition when the owner of the works on Geofilm was
invited to exhibit them in Belgium, they did travel on rolls.

Twenty-five rolling tubes were needed to transport the unframed
drawings. The largest available acid-free tubes then available had
only a 6 inch diameter, which I felt was insufficient because over
the long term rolled drawings tend to retain some curl. A tube of
larger diameter would minimize this curl and reduce the possibility
of damage during unrolling, especially should the drawings become
brittle over the years due to the artist's lavish use of oily media.
We started with sono tubes of twelve inch diameter. First we covered
them with a layer of thick Pellon non-woven polyester to absorb and
even out any irregularities in the surface of the tubes. Next came a
layer of 5 millimeter mylar as a barrier against acidity. Finally, a
layer of heavyweight, acid free, buffered paper was added to
neutralize acids. The tubes we're about ten inches longer than the
widths of the drawings so that when the ends of the tubes rested on
supports the drawings would not be compressed. Each drawing was
covered with a length of acid-free glassine paper to prevent media
transfer to its verso as it was rolled and to minimize abrasion that
may have been caused by a less slick interleaving paper. The
glassine interleaf extended beyond the end of the drawing so it
could be wrapped around the outside and then be fixed at the edges
with archival quality tape. Each drawing was rolled individually
onto its own tube. Then it was covered with a layer of the
heavyweight buffered paper.

Existing museum crates were adapted for the transport of the
drawings. This was a simple matter of fitting the ends of each
rolling tube with removable Ethafoam supports which held them
securely in the insulated crates. The tube system, designed for
transport, also proved ideal for permanent storage. Before the
exhibition our own drawings had been rolled, sometimes two or three
panels to a tube, around narrow, unisolated acidic tubes. Our
technicians built rolling racks, each of which horizontally
supported two rows of three or five of the new tubes. The drawings
can now be wheeled out of storage and into a gallery as a unit.

The enormous scale and unusual format of these Betty Goodwin
drawings demanded inventive methods of both packing and mounting.
The solutions devised to meet the needs of this temporary traveling
exhibition have proven useful as well for permanent storage and
future exhibitions. In addition, the magnet system offers many other
potential applications, especially since so many contemporary
artists are expanding their works beyond traditional dimensions. As
long as artists continue to experiment with new materials and
formats conservators will have to equal them in ingenuity.

4. Thanks to Sue Maltby,
artifact conservator at The Canadian Conservation Institute in
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, who had used magnets to mount a fragile
pair of shoes to an exhibition support, and who put me in touch with
a company which could provide technical information.

Publication History

Received: Fall 1988

Paper delivered at the Book and Paper specialty group session,
AIC 16th Annual Meeting, June 1-5, 1988, Vancouver,
British Columbia.

Papers for the specialty group session are selected by committee,
based on abstracts and there has been no further peer review. Papers
are received by the compiler in the Fall following the meeting and
the author is welcome to make revisions, minor or major.